Very catchy title, Apocalypse? I read it and it's interesting that the author keeps talking about the nuclear industry "not knowing" exactly how to handle the spent fuel and exactly what will happen when the spent fuel removal starts, because it has never happened before, but seems "certain" about the apocalyptic scenario proposed. If nothing else, this is at least hypocritical.

NALarsen, I understand what you are saying, but how about the specific issues the report raises? The author may NOT be any more certain about the apocalypse, that TEPCO is about what they are going to do, but how about these (from the report) - Can you address any of these directly, instead of just criticizing the report? Are these wrong? That would be a lot more constructive.

The racks inside the pool that contain this fuel were damaged by the explosion in the early days of the accident.

Zirconium cladding which encased the rods burned when water levels dropped, but to what extent the rods have been damaged is not known, and probably won't be until removal is attempted.

Saltwater cooling has caused corrosion of the pool walls, and probably the fuel rods and racks.

The building is sinking.

The cranes that normally lift the fuel were destroyed.

Computer-guided removal will not be possible; everything will have to be done manually.

TEPCO cannot attempt this process without humans, which will manage this enormous task while being bombarded with radiation during the extraction and casking.

The process of removing each rod will have to be repeated over 1,300 times without incident.

Moving damaged nuclear fuel under such complex conditions could result in a criticality if the rods come into close proximity to one another, which would then set off a chain reaction that cannot be stopped.

Derek, I don't want to talk for NALarsen, but that's exactly the point that was being made, wasn't it? The issues you list from the report are indeed serious, but the way the report author is presenting them implies that they "know" more about them that TEPCO knows about how things will go during a fuel transfer operation. For example, if we take the first 2 bullet items:

- The racks inside the pool that contain this fuel were damaged by the explosion in the early days of the accident.

- Zirconium cladding which encased the rods burned when water levels dropped, but to what extent the rods have been damaged is not known, and probably won't be until removal is attempted.

The author clearly says they don't know the extent of the damage, and then later in the report, they take the approach that, since the damage is *so severe*, when trying to extract these fuel rods, A, and B, and C horrible things will happen. Seriously? And, they criticize the industry of not knowing what's going to happen...

I put more credence in the author of the report that I do in TEPCO and the Japanese government. They have done nothing but mislead the public, so far. No, I don't know how many fuel rods were damaged and to what extent. But, find one source (as pro-nuclear as you want) that says or has said that fuel rods were NOT damaged! You won't be able to, because they ALL agree that some serious fuel damage has taken place.